Gun Control - Page 27

belch · 2012-12-23, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah, so? Chances are no intruder kicks in the door, besides, such intruders are out for material things, not being pursued for child murder. So for starters, he wasn't protecting himself nor his siblings, but his home and his parent's belongings.

Chances are? No, my misguided friend...the intruder DID kick in the door. The intruder WAS armed. Your presumptions are as ridiculous as your misplaced faith in humanity. Again, I sincerely hope that your timid soul never meets a true predator. I'm not mocking you, but I can assure you that should that day come, your reasoning, your pleading, your hope in his intentions being good...well, those will be inadequate.

Is that worth risking a shoot-out over in which it is normally more likely that the assailant fires first, or the kid misses and the intruder "fires in self-defense" (after being responsible for creating a conflict in the first place, of course)?

Interesting presumptions except...he risked 2 things. The bad intentions of an armed man kicking in his door, and whether you would acknowledge it or not, defense of himself and his siblings....or to hope for the best against the threat. He chose the former, and I applaud the courage he displayed. That you cannot says more about you than anything.

You completely ignore that the kid (and his siblings) had access to a weapon at that age and regardless if the kid needed it then and there, could have taken it elsewhere and used it on someone else, or hurt himself or his siblings by accident. That's exactly what happens in a whole lot of domestic shootings.

Oh, I did not ignore it. And in fact, I am glad he had the tool available. I am much happier reading that he lived, his siblings lived...than reading about yet another horrible home invasion.

It's baffling that all you can think off is there being an attacker without considering what else could have happened in another situation without an attacker.

It's baffling that you ignore mans history...the history of your own people, as much as you pretend that they are so civil...

Dutch boy sentenced in Facebook murder

Pretentious to the point of oblivion, maybe? I can't tell...but your academic argument does not trump reality my friend.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/gun-laws-netherlands

But let's see why you even brought it up? Are you suggesting that since this kid was able to fend of an attacker, we should give all 14 year olds (access to their parent's) guns? Is that it?

How typical that you lament the straw man argument, and yet create statements and viewpoints that I have never advocated nor suggested. I brought it up, as demonstrated by fact...the boy defended himself and his siblings. Theorize as to what could have happened all you want...you are just another mouthpiece, regurgitating ideas that are not your own, based on experience you do not have.

So they can go out and shoot their school bullies? Oh right "that never happened before in the USA". Gee, wonder why so many shootings happen at schools by underage teens. Ehr... they bought a gun themselves? >.> You think? Good thing teens aren't ever in an emotionally unstable state of mind or submitted to stressful situations where they might overreact, right?

Because that's what this 14 year old boy did, tight? Oh wait...you're wrong...again.

Consider that I'm 28 always lived in Europe and never witnesssed an assault with weaponry, at all.

Privileged, aloof, insulated. Yes, I hear you.

So, it doesn't happen where you live at all then? The Netherlands is some neverland of wonder and joy where the hookers poop ganja out their butts? Please, spare me. I can continue to pull up news articles to show how ridiculous your claoms are, but it's just embarrasing at this point.

Why are you pretending I pretend there's no crime? Why can't you see your crime is that more violent? Why do you think that witnessing one knife fight (which isn't a gun fight, which is what you might witness in say New York), is so much worse?

And Theo Van Gogh says...

Oh wait. He doesn't say anything. He's dead.

A knife can be dealt with with basic self-defense lessons and martial arts like jiu-jitsu, judo or karate. A gun on the other hand, cannot. Again, you don't understand I prefer a knife fight over a gun fight. The second part is incredibly important there.

This is based on all of the knife fights you've been in...?

You prefer one over the other because you understand neither. Dead is dead. Whether ventilated by blade or bullet. I am certain that you have no clue how quickly a man with a knife could close the distance and shove a 4" blade into your liver. And further, I wouldn't be surprised if you had no idea how long it would take to bleed out with a punctured liver. You should 'google' it. And then, eat crow.

And no, it's not likely to be attacked with a gun, as our crime statistics clearly show. Which you for some reason keep ignoring. Why do you keep ignoring facts over your hypothetical theories and fairy tales? There is no significant gun crime here to the point one can expect it to happen. IF it happens, which is always an option, it's not even likely to end in violence. You do realise that most criminals use a weapon to assert authority in a situation? They have no interest in being persecuted for a capital offense, if they can get away with their primary purpose: obtaining money.

Already debunked your 'Dutch Utopia' myth. Next.

You may want to make a stand, but that's just going to put yourself at a bigger risk. Sure, it's not macho. But then, it's not death either. It's only a material thing you might lose. And no, guns aren't typically used by rapists either.

That's right. You've no idea what it means to make a stand for anything. Maybe, you despise those that have...? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me, nor be remarkable for you to think that way. I guess, you should really be thankful that you have much sterner people to protect your dainty sensibilities.

In principle, running is always the best recourse. Getting people out of danger is better than putting them IN danger by seeking confrontations.

Except when you can't. Like say, when you're in your own house.

Read both the articles of that second link in the previous post. Read them completely.

I did.

I didn't say that, nor implied that anywhere.

I did say Western European criminals don't use guns as often and they're therefore far less lethal. The hooligan example for instance. People have died by being kicked to death in violent confrontations (typically fight events they organised themselves), or blunt instruments like a lead pipe in an attack from behind. The criminals that use guns the most in Western Europe are Eastern European criminals, with guns originating from their civil wars and revolutions, which wern't taken away from them. Something that did happen in Western Europe after the liberation.

Whaaaatttt??? The evil scarey "Eastern Europeans" managed to infiltrate the impenetrable "Fortress Europa"?

Oh, what a study in double speaking you are, my friend. The herb there must be potent indeed.

Note that I'm not against mobilisation of a populace. I am against portions of a populace arming themselves for their own ends. I simply don't trust people with a tool of significant killing power. You don't either, but your solution is to make sure you can't trust anyone so M.A.D. protocol enters into the equation.

Because your ideas of gun laws have prevented people from using guns to...oh wait...wha?

Man with "Big Machine Gun" opens fire in Dutch mall killing 6

But I asked you to compare it to Brazilian football, where you basically have gang wars over football matches between hooligans, where frequent gun fights result in a high death toll. Those may go as far as to kill if you wear the wrong colours of pants in their neighbourhood, because they take you for a supporter of a different club.

We don't have that. At all. Despite of the deep rivalries and hooligan / police clashes. Would you as a riot police cop rather face drunk hooligans with access to pistols, rifles and machine guns, or drunk hooligans with stones, boxing thingies, knives and sticks? Perhaps the occasional molotov cocktail?

Nice strawman. I hope he isn't set on fire with the occasional Molotov cocktail.

Big, BIG difference. I've nowhere said there's no violence in Europe. However, I HAVE stated it is nowhere NEAR as violent as with you barbarious lot. ;p

Yes, I am the barbarian that you fear. You do not understand what it means to be an American, but then I haven't asked you to. Some might say that, with your uber-elitist attitude, looking down on we the "barbarious (?) lot", you are some Euro-trash snob that gladly traded in his freedoms and liberties for a sense of security, bleeting away with the rest of the sheep...never contemplating what the actual price of their safety actually is. Never giving much thought to those that hold that line for him.

But, not me.

Figment · 2012-12-24, 04:42 AM

Belch, you're just ignoring what I actually say.

I never said there's no crime. I never said there's no murders. You keep pretending I state that, which is utterly ridiculous.

However, we have 9x LESS murders per capita than you do. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES.

Maybe you didn't read it yet. NINE TIMES.

Suck it.

belch · 2012-12-24, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Belch, you're just ignoring what I actually say.

I never said there's no crime. I never said there's no murders. You keep pretending I state that, which is utterly ridiculous.

However, we have 9x LESS murders per capita than you do. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES. NINE TIMES.

Maybe you didn't read it yet. NINE TIMES.

Suck it.

Ah, and suddenly...so juvenile.

Now, I am certain that you should never debate strategy. Or anything else really.

What you did say, my double speaking, hypocritical, childish and simplistic friend is that your crimes are much less violent. I can go back and quote you, but we both know it's true. Because, according to you, stabbings and shootings are less violent in your country. Dead people, evidently, are not as dead in the Netherlands.

Oh, by the way, your country is the size of one of our small states. I wonder what that puts your ratio at, per capita? I wonder if you had half the land mass of the US, half the population...what your statistics might look like?

Yes, believe in your fairey tales Figment. I'd tell you to suck it, but I believe, your mouth is full of crow. I'll wait til you're finished chewing.

Figment · 2012-12-24, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by belch

Ah, and suddenly...so juvenile.

Now, I am certain that you should never debate strategy. Or anything else really.

I'm sorry, I tried to debate on a level you might be capable of reading comprehension.

Because so far, you had really hard issues with comprehending the english language. I SAID LESS VIOLENT CRIME. NUMERICALLY, IT'S MATHS. A stabbing is a stabbing, a shooting a shooting. I never implied ANYWHERE that when a stabbing or shooting occurs, it's less violent. I simply stated IT HAPPENS FAR MORE WHERE YOU ARE. LESS HERE. MORE THERE. VIOLENT CRIME OCCURANCES. Get it? It's not hard. Please tell me you understand simple languagem, it's supposed to be your language too, I could try it in dutch, maybe you'd understand than with your thorough knowledge of the situation over here? :/

Crime is there, but it's not as violent as in the USA, simply because violence - and certainly not violence resulting in death - is used far less often. You don't understand this? Then you're just dense. Sorry, but there's no nicer way to say it.

Apparently, you don't understand that nine times less deaths, means that there's nine times more homicides, nine times more people DEAD every year in YOUR country by guns alone then our entire death count per year on a per capita basis. You know what per capita means? THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE ARE, BECAUSE YOU AVERAGE OVER 100.000 PEOPLE. We have 17 million people here. There's 500 million people in the EU. There's 308 million people in the USA.

And my country has the highest population density in the world, next to Shanghai. Yes, the population density is higher than the state of New York, on average, for the entire country.

And over the entire EU, with around 200 million more residents than the US, we're STILL lower in total numbers AND by FAR per capita for both crime, violent crime and gun crime rates compared to the USA. If you really just want to deny everything you hear, you're just coming over as a very dumb person. If I were you, I'd admit you were interpreting things wrong very quickly, because you're only going to harm your case more.

FFS man, go to school and learn about statistics.

belch · 2012-12-24, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I'm sorry, I tried to debate on a level you might be capable of reading comprehension.

Because so far, you had really hard issues with comprehending the english language. I SAID LESS VIOLENT CRIME. NUMERICALLY, IT'S MATHS. A stabbing is a stabbing, a shooting a shooting. I never implied ANYWHERE that when a stabbing or shooting occurs, it's less violent. I simply stated IT HAPPENS FAR MORE WHERE YOU ARE. LESS HERE. MORE THERE. VIOLENT CRIME OCCURANCES. Get it? It's not hard. Please tell me you understand simple languagem, it's supposed to be your language too, I could try it in dutch, maybe you'd understand than with your thorough knowledge of the situation over here? :/

Odd, because you also argued that I couldn't comrehend that your crime is less violent. Your words. And what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

You don't have to answer, as you have already told me inadvertently. You are privileged, insulated and therefore, aloof. That bad things happen is something you have only seen on the television, read on the internet. I have already said that I am not mocking you, and I mean it. That you hold such lofty ideals speaks well for civilization...however, the reality of human predators makes you unprepared. You don't believe they exist, apparently. I know this, you have told me. You place faith in the fact that an intruder will likely not harm you, for instance.

I no longer believe in Santa Claus. Don't hate.

Crime is there, but it's not as violent as in the USA, simply because violence - and certainly not violence resulting in death - is used far less often. You don't understand this? Then you're just dense. Sorry, but there's no nicer way to say it.

I do not think that this word means what you think it means.

Violence is violence my friend. You are clinging to the notion that you have changed that facet of humanity thru laws. That you have eradicated the desire. You attempt to paint America as a place that develops such violent tendencies merely by the ability to purchase firearms. (oh...you mean you guys don't? need me to relink some facts, friend?

)

BTW, I like how your country sentenced that kid to a year in 'juvi' (juvenile detention) for murdering a girl. Is that called the wet noodle approach, or something? Oh, I'm sure he'll be all fixed when he get's out of his long year (as in single) of 'juvi'.

Apparently, you don't understand that nine times less deaths, means that there's nine times more homicides, nine times more people DEAD every year in YOUR country by guns alone then our entire death count per year on a per capita basis. You know what per capita means? THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE ARE, BECAUSE YOU AVERAGE OVER 100.000 PEOPLE. We have 17 million people here. There's 500 million people in the EU. There's 308 million people in the USA.

I'm sure that the families of the dead feel that you're right...there's not much death and murder at all in Europe.

17 million people in your country? And with that few people, you still have no control of firearms, with your restrictive laws (but no ban, btw...), your sophisticated scanning methods (lulz), and all of the tools that you claim prevent such things from happening. That it happens at all is an interesting thing, and one you are quick to gloss over. Were you unaware of violent crime in your country? Does your media suppress it, in order to keep people feeling "safe"? I mean, a guy with a "big machine gun" shooting up a mall for no reason, man that's scarey stuff! Was his machine gunning down innocents less violent than elsewhere?

Maybe you should look to your own country, before talking about others. Or does it comfort you to look outwards at others first, so as to make your violence seem...ahem..."less violent"?

And my country has the highest population density in the world, next to Shanghai. Yes, the population density is higher than the state of New York, on average, for the entire country.

Yeah, your density in comparison to the tiny amount of land you hold makes you appear...quite dense. I mean in the way of the populace living in one place. But face it...your country is comparable to a small US state.

And over the entire EU, with around 200 million more residents than the US, we're STILL lower in total numbers AND by FAR per capita for both crime, violent crime and gun crime rates compared to the USA. If you really just want to deny everything you hear, you're just coming over as a very dumb person. If I were you, I'd admit you were interpreting things wrong very quickly, because you're only going to harm your case more.

I've never claimed the US is lower in crime. In fact, that's exactly why I go armed.

What I have refuted, is your blatant lie that Europe is some blissful paradise where violence does not occur. That you do not see it has nothing to do with me, friend. Do you often project your failings on others? Is the whole rant about the Americans really just a display of a psychological issue you have with dealing with your own countries issues? Time will tell...

FFS man, go to school and learn about statistics.

FFS man, it's not like I am calling you a racist for singling out the US in your tirades (hee hee, cause nations aren't races...oh, nevermind). In light of actual firearm violence in the Netherlands, it might seem hypocritical of you to do such. I am only pointing out where you have over simplified an issue that you do not understand. Your flailings have brought on what is now, truly, a comic rage fit by one of our gentler European allies.

Relax. Here. Watch this Ted Talk. I like this guy.

Figment · 2012-12-24, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by belch

Odd, because you also argued that I couldn't comrehend that your crime is less violent. Your words. And what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

...

You are either really bad at interpretation or you're just trolling.

I'm not even going to bother reading the remainder if you can't even admit you completely failed to understand what was said. And from the looks of it, intentionally.

belch · 2012-12-24, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

...

You are either really bad at interpretation or you're just trolling.

I'm not even going to bother reading the remainder if you can't even admit you completely failed to understand what was said. And from the looks of it, intentionally.

oh, how typical. You make some assertions, and refuse to be called on them. And your only defense is that I am somehow trolling...

Yes, run along, and let grown ups discuss grown up issues.

Figment · 2012-12-24, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by belch

Odd, because you also argued that I couldn't comrehend that your crime is less violent. Your words. And what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

Please, contemplate that "violent crime" is a crime category containing rape, murder, assault, etc. We have numerically far less of this heavier category. Of course there's some, but even then, the cases of gun assault are extremely low to the point of near non-existence in comparison to the USA.

So when people like you say "they're going to get guns anyway", presuming insane people per capita are spread evenly over the globe (unless you're saying you've got way more insane people?), then I'd say your policy enables insane people to get guns much more easily than with us. As a consequence, you have more gun crime and more slaughter tragedies.

Again, note that I never said we never get those. If it happens, it's usualy a case of non-execution of the law, communication lacking (like not knowing someone is visiting a psychiatrist or not acting on that information when a gun license is applied for).

You don't have to answer, as you have already told me inadvertently. You are privileged, insulated and therefore, aloof. That bad things happen is something you have only seen on the television, read on the internet. I have already said that I am not mocking you, and I mean it. That you hold such lofty ideals speaks well for civilization...however, the reality of human predators makes you unprepared. You don't believe they exist, apparently. I know this, you have told me. You place faith in the fact that an intruder will likely not harm you, for instance.

I no longer believe in Santa Claus. Don't hate.

You don't get me at all. Because I DO NOT trust humans on their blue eyes, I don't give them guns to be able to betray that trust in the first place. Since I can't predict whether someone would or would not abuse a gun, I'm not going to let them touch it. Because when they do, it's ALWAYS too late and when they don't there's rarely a case where it actually helped.

I do not think that this word means what you think it means.

Violence is violence my friend. You are clinging to the notion that you have changed that facet of humanity thru laws. That you have eradicated the desire. You attempt to paint America as a place that develops such violent tendencies merely by the ability to purchase firearms. (oh...you mean you guys don't? need me to relink some facts, friend?

)

Again, you're creating an image of me and self-confirm that without ever listening to what I actually said on those matters.

What I said is that humans are inherently violent, so giving them a weapon makes them more confident when in a threat situation. Threatening, as you may know from psychology, is the state of mind between attack and fleeing. Making someone feel more powerful than the one in front of them makes them more likely to engage when threats are returned or the other party does not move out of the way. After all, when one is in a more powerful position, the assessment of risk (which determines whether or not someone engages) will more likely be in favour of acting. That behaviour is true for humans and animals alike.

So if you give people a weapon, that provides more confidence. Especially a relatively easy to use, long range weapon, like a gun, they're more likely to act, than flee. You would be more likely to stand your ground and risk getting shot with a gun, than without. Without you'd be more likely to attempt to flee. Correct?

BTW, I like how your country sentenced that kid to a year in 'juvi' (juvenile detention) for murdering a girl. Is that called the wet noodle approach, or something? Oh, I'm sure he'll be all fixed when he get's out of his long year (as in single) of 'juvi'.

Actually, it's two years. Which is the maximum sentence for underaged criminals. That's been under scrutiny of being increased for a long period of time. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet and it's a crying shame. Overal the dutch populace feels the punishments are too lax, which is a result of a judicial movement several decades ago that felt it was important to reeducate and then reintegrate criminals into society quickly after treatment. I'm not disagreeing with you there: it's too weak a sentence.

For the record, that's one of the issues we as a populace have been annoyed with for years: soft judges (judicial issue). We'd like to see "life" sentence actually mean life, instead of 25 years and then get out at half that on good behaviour. Laws to treat juveniles as adults have recently been approved. It's a shame the judge in question didn't opt to do that.

However, there's this thing called TBS ("ter beschikking stellen" ("being available" to the State), which means after the sentence has been completed, a psychologist (who assessed them during prison) determines if they're psychologically fit to return to society. Or if there's a good chance of recurrent behaviour. If recurrent behaviour is assessed likely, then the sentence can become indefinite imprisonment. Psychologists will have to then provide this assessment every few years. But that's only possible if the criminal in question is mentally ill or unstable. In this case, the judge thought best not to do that, because then treatment would only start AFTER a sentencing and he thought it important to start treatment immediately before they had completely matured mentally.

And if you think the above stabbing is common, you'd be sorely mistaken. It's extremely exceptional.

I'm sure that the families of the dead feel that you're right...there's not much death and murder at all in Europe.

One is always too many. But at least it's not as much as with you lot. I'm sure the Newtown, Denver and all those other families are ever so happy with your gun enthousiasm.

17 million people in your country? And with that few people, you still have no control of firearms, with your restrictive laws (but no ban, btw...), your sophisticated scanning methods (lulz), and all of the tools that you claim prevent such things from happening. That it happens at all is an interesting thing, and one you are quick to gloss over. Were you unaware of violent crime in your country? Does your media suppress it, in order to keep people feeling "safe"? I mean, a guy with a "big machine gun" shooting up a mall for no reason, man that's scarey stuff! Was his machine gunning down innocents less violent than elsewhere?

And yet again, you keep going on about this weird notion that I would have said ZERO, NADA, ZILCH crime and shootings. I NEVER SAID THAT. Say that onee more time and you're on ignore. I said LIMIT. RESTRICT. MAKE IT HARD TO GET. It's not a 100% guarantee. I NEVER SAID THAT. I DID say that it's MUCH LESS LIKELY. MUCH LESS LIKELY, do you speak english? Do you know what that means? It means there's still a chance that it happens!

There's no such thing as absolute control. Nobody is claiming that.

Maybe you should look to your own country, before talking about others. Or does it comfort you to look outwards at others first, so as to make your violence seem...ahem..."less violent"?

Maybe you should look outwards first to see if there's something to do about your country.

Yeah, your density in comparison to the tiny amount of land you hold makes you appear...quite dense. I mean in the way of the populace living in one place. But face it...your country is comparable to a small US state.

Not at all. A small US state frequently has 10 to 12 times less populace than ours on the same amount of land. We're somewhat comparable to the state of New York.

I've never claimed the US is lower in crime. In fact, that's exactly why I go armed.

What I have refuted, is your blatant lie that Europe is some blissful paradise where violence does not occur.

Please, quote me on that lie where I say violence does NOT occur, AT ALL. Man, who gave you english lessons?

EVERY SINGLE TIME I point out it is LOWER. Not NON-EXISTENT. Sheesh. Talk about strawmen.

That you do not see it has nothing to do with me, friend. Do you often project your failings on others? Is the whole rant about the Americans really just a display of a psychological issue you have with dealing with your own countries issues? Time will tell...

Troll much? I don't report quickly, but you're asking for it.

FFS man, it's not like I am calling you a racist for singling out the US in your tirades (hee hee, cause nations aren't races...oh, nevermind).

I don't single out the USA in my tirades. It's you lot that keep bringing the discussion to your country, because you're unable, unwilling and uncaring to talk about other countries or about gun control in general...

Everytime one does that, you bring up the 2nd Amendment - which isn't an universal thing, nowhere near a human right. It's a local privilege. Nothing more.

In light of actual firearm violence in the Netherlands, it might seem hypocritical of you to do such. I am only pointing out where you have over simplified an issue that you do not understand. Your flailings have brought on what is now, truly, a comic rage fit by one of our gentler European allies.

Bad troll is bad.

Shame you're not much of a debater. A debater would actually understand the meaning of "less violent crime", because he'd know that in the context of this discussion, it's a crime category.

I have not simplified the issue at all. You're simply too simple too understand it. Apparently.

belch · 2012-12-24, 08:52 PM

I'm not going to bother responding to your quotes. It's really very simple. You have, and continue to act as if your answers are the solution for gun violence in the US. I have done some simple things to counter your method...mainly, I have supplied you with an unexpected dose of your own medicine. You do not like scrutiny of things that have happened in your country. I find that mildly humorous, as you have been so quick to disparage not only Americans and our laws, but individuals that have opinions you disagree with.

Trolling? You should exmine yourself as clearly as you like to examine others perhaps.

The unexpected result, something I didn't anticipate, was how easily you turned...anxious. I can understand why, and really it was you who put yourself into the tenuous position...claiming that you had answers that the "barbarious lot" could not. Implying that somehow, you were immune based on the folley that "Fortress Europa" was immune to such problems. Cling to semantics, dear brother, but it has been quite apparent.

If you truly wished to engage in a debate, I doubt you would have taken the approaches that you have. So quick you have been to point out others failings, you have been blind to your own.

So, by all means, report me. It only proves my point. But there is a saying...that one should not dish out what one does not want to receive.

Figment · 2012-12-25, 03:11 AM

I never stated we were completely immune. You are just being an ass by not accepting I actually said we made sure these things happen less frequently and violent crime simply does not occur as often as we chose not to arm our criminals ourselves.

You keep lieing about what I said and I don't appreciate nor respect that one bit.

Consider yourself on ignore. I've corrected you many times on what I actually said and all you do is keep going with a strawman just so you can troll. You are a despicable person in that regards.

Baneblade · 2012-12-25, 07:38 AM

As someone who has actually been in a knife fight and a gun fight, I'll take the gun fight. Knife fights hurt a lot more and take much less skill to pull off effectively, while guns are usually less dangerous in untrained hands.

As in, I'd rather face a criminal with a gun than one with a knife if my only option was to bring a knife to a knife fight and a gun to the gun fight.

Figment · 2012-12-25, 03:12 PM

Guns do not hurt as much?

Tell that to those firemen that died this week who were killed at ranges and at a speed a knife can't be used.

Also nice: the murderer had served 17 years for killing his grandma, and apparently also killed his sister.

Of course giving such people guns - whether intentional or not - is simply dangerous... One of the victims was a cop as well. I bet he'd have stood more chance against a knife wielder of 62 years old than a gun wielding 62 year old. And probably at least one of them would have had time to react.

Not to mention run away from a 62 y/o.

Knife fight can be avoided, a gun, certainly not an AR-15, not so much.

But hey, otherwise just send your military out without bullets, if you think that makes them more effective at killing people...

belch · 2012-12-25, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I never stated we were completely immune. You are just being an ass by not accepting I actually said we made sure these things happen less frequently and violent crime simply does not occur as often as we chose not to arm our criminals ourselves.

You keep lieing about what I said and I don't appreciate nor respect that one bit.

Consider yourself on ignore. I've corrected you many times on what I actually said and all you do is keep going with a strawman just so you can troll. You are a despicable person in that regards.

lol...yes, hide your head in the sand, hide from all the things you cannot understand. How typically "cultured" for you to fail to take responsibility for what you said, and admit it was exactly what you meant.

Once again, I hope you never meet an actual predator. You are unprepared for anything but acceptance as a victim. Goodbye, frail friend.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

As someone who has actually been in a knife fight and a gun fight, I'll take the gun fight. Knife fights hurt a lot more and take much less skill to pull off effectively, while guns are usually less dangerous in untrained hands.

As in, I'd rather face a criminal with a gun than one with a knife if my only option was to bring a knife to a knife fight and a gun to the gun fight.

You speak the truth. In fact, to under-estimate a threat with a knife at typical handgun engagement ranges (3-7 yards) is a terrible mistake. Most people have not trained to quickly and accurately engage such a threat before that blade finds it's target.

Figment · 2012-12-25, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by belch

How typically "cultured" for you to fail to take responsibility for what you said, and admit it was exactly what you meant.

I stand for every single word I said in this thread. Again, I never said any of the things you try to make me say. QUOTE ME ON IT. Come on. QUOTE ME LITERALLY, WORD BY WORD, where I said we are 100% immune to any form of crime and murder. If I would have said that, I would have used the phrasing infinitely more, since dividing by 0 is infinite.

You can't.

I'm not your friend btw. I don't befriend lieing, smallminded, self-confirmatory twats that don't respect other people's opinion nor are able to nor willing to admit it when they made an interpretation mistake.

As of right now, you're officially on ignore. And no good-bye to you, good riddens to you, sir.

belch · 2012-12-25, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I stand for every single word I said in this thread. Again, I never said any of the things you try to make me say. QUOTE ME ON IT. Come on. QUOTE ME LITERALLY, WORD BY WORD, where I said we are 100% immune to any form of crime and murder. If I would have said that, I would have used the phrasing infinitely more, since dividing by 0 is infinite.

You can't.

I'm not your friend btw. I don't befriend lieing, smallminded, self-confirmatory twats that don't respect other people's opinion nor are able to nor willing to admit it when they made an interpretation mistake.

As of right now, you're officially on ignore. And no good-bye to you, good riddens to you, sir.

Oh I do stand for what I say, and more. In my world, I can't afford the two faced, hypocritical, smarmy tripe that...some...think pass for culture. Kinda like how you said you were ignoring me, yet didn't.

You don't like that your words look ridiculous? Well, quit saying ridiculous things. Like ju-jitsu being a line of defense in a knife fight. Like how violence in Europe is less violent. It only makes you appear pathetic. But, I feel somewhat sorry for you. I have angered your dainty sensibilities. Faced with mere words, you are frothing. I think it's a good thing that you cannot access weapons...oh wait, you can in the Netherlands! That's how you had the maniac machine gun mall shooter! Aww...don't be sad that you're unable to explain that away with your pseudo-intellectual facade. It doesn't work for others that try it either.

Instead of being angry at me and calling me names (really now, so cultured

), maybe you should be practising karate moves or something. Whatever blows your hair back, baby!

psst...it's riddance. Good riddance. Don't want you looking foolish while telling others to get an education now...